The obstacle in Seattle is Key Arena. When they remodeled it 10 years ago, it was not set up for hockey.
Here's a quote from a story I read about Key Arena.
former Sonics owner Barry Ackerley’s insistence that the building (Key Arena) not be able to house major league hockey. He confirmed longstanding rumors that Ackerley had tried to acquire an NHL team for Seattle and was rebuked by the league. Ackerley was reportedly quite upset with the NHL and refused any arena configurations which may allow another owner to bring the competitive NHL product to the area.
Look at their configuration for hockey. You can't have an NHL team in an arena with that configuration.
The Seattle Metropolitans played for the Stanley Cup twice about 90 years ago, but I don't know if they were technically an NHL frachise. I think that they were in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association, whose champion then played the NHL champion for the cup.
Hull-Os - The Safeco Field taxes are expiring early, so that is one source being looked at.
KCMax - Seattle doesn't have the NHL because of the arena situation. The NHL has wanted a team there since the 70's. If the Sonics build an arena at the Safeway site in Bellevue, I'd expect them to be in the market for a team. Portland doesn't have a team because other than Nike, it has a small coporate HQ base, and Nike doesn't want to offend anyone and get too involved with a franchise. Another factor was the Rose Garden was run by Paul Allen meaning only he could make the NHL viable. With the Blazers and Rose Garden jointly for sale, they may be a player for the NHL, if they land the right owner.
KCP - you mean like the opinion that a popular team will leave a 3 team market and move to a market half its size to be the third team? Come on, look at this realistically. The chances they leave the Seattle area are almost nil.
Sundodger wrote:
KCP - you mean like the opinion that a popular team will leave a 3 team market and move to a market half its size to be the third team? Come on, look at this realistically.
If the pot is sweet enough, anything is possible. The St. Louis Rams are a case in point.
The Sonics have been sold to an Oklahoma City businessman. Things could get very interesting, but I'd say KC is probably out as a potential relocation candidate for the Sonics.
More on my blog. They say they'll stay in Seattle for now, but I'm sure the threat of relocation has just been amped up and that will force Seattle to step up their arena efforts.
cityscape wrote:
Do you think KC would put up a "blank check" for the Sonics?
It's hard to see KC doing that, especially if they thought there was a chance we'd get the Penguins. If the Sonics were our ONLY shot at an NBA or NHL team, then I could see that being more realistic.
KansasCityCraka wrote:
The Sonics have officially been sold to the company who was looking to get the Hornets. The team will be moved to OKC winthin 2-3 seasons.
yep, here' the story. We'll see how they do over the long run there. I'll try not to let my very dismal opinion of OKC affect my objectivity but I don't think this is a good move for the NBA.
KansasCityCraka wrote:
The Sonics have officially been sold to the company who was looking to get the Hornets. The team will be moved to OKC winthin 2-3 seasons.
Is this opinion? I don't see it stated anywhere? I could see them doing so, just wondering if that's been officially stated. Personally I don't see it working in OKC...it's a very, very poor city (I think, now somebody will post stats to prove me wrong).
Highlander wrote:
yep, here' the story. We'll see how they do over the long run there. I'll try not to let my very dismal opinion of OKC affect my objectivity but I don't think this is a good move for the NBA.
It seems idiotic to put an NBA team in OKC. It's only a couple hours from the Dallas metro area. I've been to OKC before and it's a pretty pathetic city. I just think KC or St. Louis would be a better fit.
kcmetro wrote:
It seems idiotic to put an NBA team in OKC. It's only a couple hours from the Dallas metro area. I've been to OKC before and it's a pretty pathetic city. I just think KC or St. Louis would be a better fit.
If OKC does end up landing the Supersonics (or another franchise), I can't see the team staying beyond a handful of years. Their arena was built in 2002 and is far less equipped/equitable than ours is (using the comparison at the end of the article). I think the novelty of having a professional franchise would wear off pretty quickly considering they already have a lot of experience with the Hornets. Plus, by the time they actually have their own team on the floor, their arena will already be approaching the renovation period. I'm surprised the article didn't mention the King's situation...I wonder if the irony of them potentially returning would give us a boost in luring them back should they leave Sacramento.
OKC? what are these guys thinking? seattle's a much bigger market and has a lot more spending money. based off the article it doesn't seem like a finalized deal yet for the sonics to move to OKC.
Of course it would be an idiotic move to Oklahoma City, but the real problem I'm beginning to see is that unlike them, I don't see anyone from our city stepping up to the plate, speaking publicly and actually making real efforts to lure another professional franchise to the city.
I'm starting to believe more and more that City Hall is more than content with college athletics on a more frequent basis at the Sprint Center and keeping the Royals and Chiefs out at the sports complex.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see any REAL desire like OKC is showing to try and get an NBA or NHL team playing downtown at the arena.
